[PON] Conflict in Europe - General Thread

[Vezina]

Nothing has been posted about Belgium's forged CB in either this thread or the Paradox thread. This is officially an unprovoked attack by Belgium according to our house rules. I'd like the 10% penalty applied at this point.

[Spurius]

Speaking of house rules, would someone please post a link to them ? Thanks!

[Vezina]

I'm assuming you aren't a player in the game, but I don't know all of the new names so far. I apologize if this is not true. The house rules are in our dropbox folder. Here they are:

RULES

'Conflict in Europe' is a customized Pride of Nations multiplayer game where we try to simulate the nations of the Victorian Era to the best of abilities of the Athena Game Engine (AGE). These are the house rules which come first before any engine or custom rule:

* Every player plays one or more nations to the best of his abilities and the best of that nation's interests. Players who play more than one nation should avoid interacting them in a complementary or disruptive way. Hosts are players who process the orders to create new turns by a deadline. Hosts are not privileged players in any way. All players are potential hosts as they should have installed the necessary 'Game Files' for our custom changes.

* The pace of the game is one turn per day to accommodate players in different time zones. The nominal deadline time is 20:00 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time).

* Players have the obligation and right to follow the discussions in the multiplayer section of the AGEOD forums and ask for scripted corrections to any event or situation they deem can better simulate the history (real or alternative) as it unfolds. As long as no contrary voices are heard, their requests should be implemented in the timespan of 3 days. A player who thinks it differently can ask for a vote on any matter.

* When players vote, they vote for the best interest of the game, not as ambassadors of their avatar nations. Votes are counted by the end of the 3rd day of the upload of a proposal, unless a clear majority has been reached beforehand. Possible voting options are: yes, no, abstain. Commenting is allowed but might not be taken into consideration. Alternative proposals can be considered along the original one, but the deadline of the original proposal still applies. Players who do not vote automatically abstain. The majority is considered by those who voted YES or NO.

* All international treaties should be uploaded in the correct folders of the Dropbox section of "Treaties and News". Some or all clauses can be secret. Players should offer proof of their signing date of their secret clauses if requested. Players should try to abstract their out-of-game arrangements with the closest of in-game equivalents. In case a nation breaks an out-of-game deal, he can ask for the punishment (in prestige) of an offending nation. A penalty of up to 10% of the VP points can be given. In case of disagreements a vote can be cast.

* Any abstracted game action (colonial, diplomatic, etc) is allowed including "Forge CB". A player who plays a forged casus belli action is obliged to publish in the Discussion/Diplomacy thread of the forums the reasons behind his actions. In case he doesn't do that the rest of nations should consider this form of action "unprovoked". A penalty of up to 10% of the VP points can be applied for unprovoked attacks. In case of disagreements or non convincing justifications a vote can be cast.

* If a nation has an automatic CB (given by the engine for whatever reason: claim, infringement, etc) it can declare war without further notice.

* Known and reported game engine exploits should be avoided. In case a nation draws an advantage by abusing such an exploit the players can cast a vote and fix the tort with a script.

* Language. No bad lanuagage, or insulting players, etc. - if you can't say it on the forum you can't say it in the DropBox folders. Nations can insult nations - but be aware that this may result in a prestige hit, grant a CB, or in extreme cases count as a declaration of war and allow the insulted nation to call upon its defensive treaties.

* Whatever is not covered in these rules can be resolved or added in these rules through a vote. A single player suggestion is enough for a proposal to be put on vote.

* Scripts that fix situations can be applied retroactively.

[Ojodeaguila]

1. He probably did not know the rule.

2. Kensai can you copy the rules and he roster in the first post.

[coolbean]

* If a nation has an automatic CB (given by the engine for whatever reason: claim, infringement, etc) it can declare war without further notice.

* Known and reported game engine exploits should be avoided. In case a nation draws an advantage by abusing such an exploit the players can cast a vote and fix the tort with a script.

Would the ability to reverse-use an automatic CB not be a game exploit? Now that Vezina mentions it, I believe the timing was incorrect in the chain of events that led to the Spanish DoW. France DoW's Germany > Spain concludes DA with Germany > Spain declares war on France. I would think this would mean the reverse automatic CB was used, resulting in Spain not having to forge a CB and rationalize it.

[Vezina]

I think it is. Spain declared war on Egypt, which gave a CB to France because of the French-Egyptian DA. Spain then used France's CB to declare war despite the fact that it is a one-way CB and no one else has used it that way. Sounds like an exploit to me.

[Ojodeaguila]

1. I get an ingame CB, I don't know why the game is very complex, and I use it.

2. Why did you not talk anything before losing battles and provinces against my armies?

3. Why if you know a bug didn't say anything before someone use it against you?

[Jim-NC]

The 1873 CBOT has been published (can't remember if I posted this before).

[nemethand]

Edit: What you did was also an abuse of the CB system. You used my CB on you to declare war instead of forging a CB. There is a bug in the system where one-way CB's can be used both ways, but no one until you has actually abused that.

Vezina,

if you (and the majority) feels that way, we should make a house rule on that. I can only tell, as far as I remember, that the same happened numerous times. This was the way Japan DoWd Russia - Russia had a CB against Japan for Sakhalin (Kensai, pls correct me if I am wrong), and I (Russia) definitely used it once - DoWing GBR - when GBR had a CB against Russia for Kabul (?).

To date, my understanding has been that using the 2 way CBs is a use - and not abuse - of the game system. I am, however, open to adopt a house rule on that issue.

[Vezina]

But it's not a 2-way CB. It is a one-way CB. Look at the diplomacy screen and see that it points one way unlike CB's from the non-mini-game crisis that grants both sides a CB.

I did not know those were the CB's used, but I would've proposed the same thing if I did.

[Jim-NC]

Unfortunately, CBs are 2 way (even though it does state they are one way on the interface). This has happened before (or had the possibility of happening before).

[Vezina]

I did not know that all CB's were 2-way in the system. I"ll drop the Spanish proposal, but I will make a new proposal later for a house rule pertaining to who can actually use a CB.

[captnhowdy]

BjFagan, can you explain why the German NM has jumped all the way up to 190? You were at 83 last turn, and haven't gained any objective regions.

[Vezina]

He took Cairo this turn.

[captnhowdy]

Of course, Lindi when you read this. I hope you lose every game you ever play from now on.

[Vezina]

It's not on him, man.

Check your email captnhowdy.

[bjfagan]

Now don't be upset. I am quite happy that Lindi threw me a bone. At first I was real upset, but then realized he also gave my troops, who were teleported to the Sudan after peace with Britain, an easier way to get home.

[bjfagan]

It's not on him, man.

Check your email captnhowdy.

Seems like evidence of French/Austrian collusion to me.

[captnhowdy320]

Ya it's not your fault Lindi(no offense) was a complete idiot about this. I'm not that mad though because I'm probably going to be quitting this not long after my baby boy is born. He's due early June.

[Vezina]

Amazingly enough, I have emailed just about every nation in this game including you. You specifically asked what France offered Austria and I answered truthfully. France offered Austria nothing nor did I even broach the subject. There are plenty of nations in the game that have a problem with Germany.

[bjfagan]

I was just trying to be funny. I should have put a after the post.

[Vezina]

I was just trying to be funny. I should have put a after the post.

Sorry, the internet doesn't communicate humor very well. The smiley would've changed the whole way I read that.

[Spurius]

I'm assuming you aren't a player in the game, but I don't know all of the new names so far. I apologize if this is not true. The house rules are in our dropbox folder. Here they are:

Thanks very much. You're correct, I'm not a player in the game. I'm a fascinated onlooker, and really look forward to any new posts about the CiE. I have considered adding my name to a list of possible players except that overseas travel in a couple months means I would only have to opt out again. So for now I just watch the fun from a distance

[Kensai]

I am afraid the one-way CB working as a two-way CB is an old "issue" (I remember it from the days of sagji) and all nations have used it more or less without major complains in the past. Yes, it somehow "spoils" the chain, but what is important about the chain is not who declares war as much as if that who declares war is obliged to do so in a response CB.

In your example: France got the response CB against Spain but Spain declared the war. This is ok as long as the base mechanism applies: if Spain hadn't declared war, it wouldn't be penalized... but the response CB (since two-way) gave it the opportunity to take the initiative and left France without saying in this: France might have opted to take a Prestige hit in not helping Egypt after Spain's DOW there. Actually it may be working as designed (only the Philippes can say here) in a way to give more options to all involved parts.

Regarding nemethand's example, Japan obviously took advantage of the Sakhalin "open issue". In game terms: I didn't even have the opportunity, I think, to forge a CB since there was a permanent CB in place. I do not recall if it appeared on the diplomacy interface.

Nothing has been posted about Belgium's forged CB in either this thread or the Paradox thread. This is officially an unprovoked attack by Belgium according to our house rules. I'd like the 10% penalty applied at this point.

To this I totally agree. It was a breach of rules. At least some role-playing! There is not even a need to vote, as the unjustified declaration followed the CB instantly and with no further communication.

But honestly, I am pretty sure what has been done behind the scenes. There is almost no doubt that Germany convinced Belgium to hand it some of your seized African colonies once this war is done...
Can you blame them? Actually, at last, Belgium is being played aggressively in an opportunist way. Belgium was without any colonies so far.

[Soulstrider]

Sorry I was unaware of that rule that I had to post the declaration before actually going to war, however since I still haven't made any move yet I purpose that I won't take any action with my troops this turn so to simulate that interval.

However I did write in the diplomacy thread the declaration.

[Kensai]

It's ok about the game rules, but please read them as they are important in certain aspects. Regarding your in game justification: isn't this reason too weak now? I mean, ok, we don't really challenge the CB explanatiosn here but in my opinion there should be a penalty in this very case. Perhaps at 5%, but in.

It's more than certain that Belgium takes a stance here because it has a great potential to profit from this war, but it is good for the game to "create a climate" (roleplaying) before such an action. You jumped into the war in just two turns which is kind of crazy considering the friendly relations with France beforehand. Egypt's entry against the Germans was quite the shock as well, considering that the Prussians helped them regain their nation. These "issues" are mostly because we had new players to man these nations. Fair enough, but the penalty for such unprovoked actions should still apply imo. Especially when they go completely undocumented until post-factum.

My opinion, of course, if you believe you have a case to make here we can always vote as players. However, I might be wrong here to expect too much, but one of the reasons I enjoy this game so much is because of coolbean's, Vezina's, bjfagan's, nemethand's, Sir Garnet's, Jim-NC's, and all the other players' "press releases". If we are simply to play a PBEM with just an elaborate rival (a human intelligence), we lose half the fun of the game. Simply to keep you enjoyed look for example what lousy press releases Japan has been offering when there is no action!

[Soulstrider]

Oh that's the official reason released to the world. Let's just say I have a deal with Germany and I have much to win in case of victory, however for RP reasons it doesn't make much sense revealing it.

[bjfagan]

I don't believe we should be jumping on Soulstrider for not properly justifying his entry into the war. There have been many wars declared in our game over flimsy or absurd justifications. Indeed the example just given by Kensai of Egypt, is just one of them. I would even say Austria has done it twice by throwing out over 15 years of game history, where Prussia and Austria had very close relations and military cooperation, just so we can have a fun war. The sword cuts both ways, so we have to live with these flimsy justifications for war.

I guess I should have advised Soulstrider to say something publicly to justify his war, but I did not think of it. I am quite busy just dealing with the issues at hand. However, to help Soustrider and everyone else to better understand the Belgian war against France, I will give some justification for him. The North German Confederation had a very close relationship with Belgium in the last war started by France (while Germany was preoccupied that time too, I might add ). In fact, Belgium had given passage rights to Germany and German troops passed through Belgium to attack northern France. We might have even had a DA already in place. Belgium was going to join the war but failed one or two times trying to forge a CB. Belgium was a de facto German ally to stop French aggression. So, it stands to reason that the Belgians would do it again when France declared another war against Germany.

[Sir Garnet]

Foreign control of the Sudan is ongoing cause for war by Egypt against whichever country holds it - as solid as Alsace-Lorraine as a basis for war between the French and Prussians has been. Whether declaring war was strategically or diplomatically timely is another question.

[captnhowdy320]

I would even say Austria has done it twice by throwing out over 15 years of game history, where Prussia and Austria had very close relations and military cooperation, just so we can have a fun war.

You and Sagji had 15 years of close relations and military cooperation. Does my name spell Sagji and not Captnhowdy320? I told you if I was controlling Austria from the get-go. I would never have had as close relations with my biggest rival. And never let Germany, just happen.

P.S. - And for the record. The South German Minors war wasn't just for fun.